Mike McMahan Calls On Fans To Help Keep ‘Star Trek: Lower Decks’ From Facing The Same Fate As ‘Prodigy’
Mike McMahan Calls On Fans To Help Keep ‘Star Trek: Lower Decks’ From Facing The Same Fate As ‘Prodigy’
Work on season 5 is underway, but the showrunner is concerned it could be the last.
You're viewing a single thread.
To those complaining about streaming services, I've been using free alternative streaming websites for years and haven't had an issue.
Right, but isn't that what also causes these shows getting cancelled? You watching it on a non legit platform means you didn't watch it at all
No, because the market has become so fragmented, no streaming services are profitable, so there's no show on one that will ever last. Average shows last on TV channels because of ads. A medium performing TV show can last forever on TV with ads. A medium performing TV show on a streaming service gets canceled after a couple seasons to transition resources to a new show. They're looking for that next big flashy thing to draw subscriptions.
In the current broken system, the only options are to continually churn shows, or push ads on streaming services. Both are happening.
So, if you pirate a TV show today, you aren't killing it, and you aren't part of the problem. Paying for the service won't keep the show around, and not paying for it won't kill it either. The show is already dead, you're just not forking over your hard earned cash for a bite at its dead corpse.
@pachrist @Son_of_dad Netflix is profitable, very profitable right now. Disney + would already have been profitable if the previous CEO hadn't overcommitted to extra program spending. Cable used to lose money for over a decade until it became a cash cow. The issue right now is that people are between the two bad choices a cable bundle or a fragmented OTT choice that becomes expensive once. Eventually I predict you will get a new ad supported non linear streaming bundles.
This interaction reminds me of an Always Sunny episode. The gang are mad because their favourite movie franchise sold out and got bad, so the whole episode is about them complaining with the movie execs about how the changes made to the movie (to attract different audiences in order to try to make the franchise profitable again) all suck, and what they should be doing differently. But the punchline of the episode is they have all along been streaming the movie series and not paying to watch it, so they are part of the problem.
Never expected to see it played out IRL though, and the fact you're being downvoted makes it all a bit less funny...
E: and now me :D maybe the dissenters would like to enlighten us as to how piracy doesn't affect capitalism?
Most people don't want to be pirates they just don't want to pay for an inferior service. You want people to pay then make a product worth paying for that's prorated by country, and they gladly will.
As an example of just how bad it is, pirate streaming sites have sort by date, country, IMDb score, genre, etc. but most paid services don't have any sort feature beyond genre. This effectively makes paid services unusable for a lot of people.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-piracy by any means, and I'm as bothered by the changing of services as the next person. I just found it amusing that people seemed to disagree that pirating would have an impact on the bottom line of the execs, so that life was imitating art.
Because you're pretending like pirating is any different to the bottom line than not buying the product.
There is no difference. They're going to make a marvel movie next year. If I don't go see it did the company lose any money?
No.
Same if I pirate it. Whether or not you actually watch the movie is irrelevant.If you want to see a TV show, but pirate it instead, did the company lose any money*? Yes.
This thread is hilarious.
No, dude whether or not I watch a movie has NOTHING to do with the movie company's income.
Stay in high school then once you get past learning basic economics, have another go at thinking.
The point the other person is trying to make is that if a person wants to watch something, but the price is higher than they value or can afford for the experience they will not pay the price, so the company will not profit. If the person then pirates the content to view it, the company has lost nothing additional.
However, one could also make the argument that the viewer having the ability to pirate lowers what they are willing to pay, thus the company does lose some amount of profit in aggregate over time. This though is not necessarily true for those who lack the means to pay, rather than just the willingness.
Ultimately for people who do have the means, piracy is a symptom more of a service issue rather than a price issue. People generally will follow the path of least resistance to acquire what they desire. For most people a small payment and easy access will lead them not to pirate, but as prices rise, content fractures and UIs enshitify, the aggregate effort crosses the line and they start to withdraw and turn to other methods.
Everyone has their own willingness to pay for things on the demand curve, if companies pick an optimal price, they maximize profits, and aren't harmed by people who cannot or will not pay that price utilizing a non-consumable resource without payment.
True, but if you're not going to subscribe regardless then why not?